Agenda and minutes

The panel is requested to elect a Chairman for the hearing in line with rules agreed by the Licensing and Safety Committee. 

Councillor Mrs Diane Chambers was elected as Chairman for this meeting.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Godwin.

It was agreed that the Chairman, after consultation with the other members of the Panel, would sign the record of this meeting outside the meeting.  

There were none. 

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other interests

There were none.

The applicant has applied for a new premises licence for Demart Global Food Store, Unit 2, 14 High Street, Gillingham, Kent ME7 1BB. The application is to request the sale of alcohol off the premises.  All responsible authorities have been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003.

Representations have been received from Public Health, Kent Police and a Councillor from a neighbouring Ward in relation to all four of the licensing objectives.  To date, no agreements have been reached.  No further representations have been received from members of the public or other responsible authorities. 

Discussion:

The Panel was advised that officers from the Licensing Unit had informed the applicant of the date and time of the hearing but the applicant had not made contact in advance to confirm their attendance or request a deferral. The applicant was reached by phone at the premises on the morning of the hearing and belatedly requested a deferral but this was refused by the Panel in light of the lateness of the request. The Panel therefore agreed to proceed with the hearing in the applicant’s absence.

The Principal Licensing and Enforcement Officer stated that the application was to request the sale of alcohol off the premises. All responsible authorities had been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003 and representations in relation to all four licensing objectives had been received from Public Health, Kent Police and a Councillor from a neighbouring ward. 

The following documents were included in the agenda for the Panel’s consideration:

Appendix A – Pages 9 to 25: A copy of the application as submitted

Appendix B – Page 27: A copy of the floor plan

Appendix C – Page 29: A copy of a map showing the location of the premises

Appendix D – Pages 31 to 59: Copies of representations received. 

In the absence of the applicant, the Panel noted the details of the application.

The Chairman invited those who had submitted representations against the application to state their objections. On behalf of Kent Police, PC Hill expressed concern that the premises were in a location which attracted a number of street drinkers.  The applicant had not mentioned this issue in the premises licence application which had led the Police to conclude that the applicant had failed to conduct sufficient research before submitting the application. PC Hill noted that the premises were small and he was concerned that the sale of alcohol would be the main focus of the business. He had tried to make contact with the applicant to discuss the application, but had been unable to. He expressed concern that the statements in section M of the application describing the steps that the applicant intended to take to promote the four licensing objectives were too generic.  Although Kent Police opposed the application, they had suggested a number of conditions, included within the agenda, should the Panel be minded to grant a licence. 

The Health Improvement Project Co-ordinator presented the report of the Director of Public Health, which was appended to the agendareport and provided statistical information on the area in which the premises were located.This highlighted that the area was among the most deprived in Medway.She referred to a study commissioned by Public Health in 2014 which identified a clear link between alcohol related harms, hospital admissions, alcohol related crimes and deprived areas where there was a density of licensed premises. The Director’s report highlighted the high levels crime and ambulance call-outs in the area and also the issues of alcohol related litter and street drinking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 579.

In accordance with Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council has received an application from Kent Police, as a responsible authority, for a review of the existing premises licence in respect of Shozna, 153-155 Maidstone Road, Rochester, Kent, ME1 1RR.

All responsible authorities have been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003.  Representations supporting the review have been received from the Home Office (Immigration Enforcement), who are a responsible authority under the Licensing Act 2003, and from a member of the public.  No further representations supporting the review have been received from other responsible authorities or members of the public.

The Principal Licensing and Enforcement Officer said that, in accordance with Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council had received an application for review from Kent Police as a responsible authority, in respect of the existing Premises Licence for the Shozna restaurant, 153 – 155 Maidstone Road, Rochester, Kent ME1 1RR. The grounds for the review related to two of the four licensing objectives:

·         The prevention of crime and disorder

·        Public safety

The application had been correctly advertised for the required timescale by placing notices at the premises, Council contact points and on the Council’s website in accordance with regulations made under the Licensing Act 2003.  Also in accordance with the legislation, notice of the application (and the application itself) was served on the relevant parties for the licensed premises along with the other responsible authorities. Representations in support of the review had been received from the Home Office (Immigration Enforcement)  and a Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator.

The following documents were included in the agenda for the Panel’s consideration:

• Appendix A – pages 67 to 70: A copy of the current premises licence.
• Appendix B – page 71:  A copy of a plan showing the location of the premises.
• Appendix C – page 73 – 80: A copy of the Application for Review.
• Appendix D – pages 81: A copy of the supporting representation.
• Exempt Appendix 1 – pages 85 – 92: Copy of the full version of the Review Application.

·        Exempt Appendix 2 – pages 93 and 94: Copy of representation from

the Home Office.

·        Exempt Appendix 3 – Pages 95 to 102: Submission from the Licensee’s solicitor.

The Principal Licensing and Enforcement Officer directed the Panel’s attention to the grounds for the review in relation to the licensing objectives of the Licensing Act 2003 and the steps that it may consider necessary, as set out in the agenda, to promote the licensing objectives, having regard to the review application and the relevant representations received.

The Chairman invited the representatives from Kent Police to present the application for a licence review.  They outlined the reasons for submitting the application and a representative of the Home Office (Immigration Enforcement)  spoke in support of it.

Following questioning, the Chairman invited the representative of the licence holder to respond to the review application. After further questioning, all parties were invited to sum up. The Chairman then asked all parties to leave the room during the Panel’s deliberations. They returned for the Chairman’s announcement the Panel’s decision.

Decision:

a)     In reviewing the current premises licence for Shozna, 153-155 Maidstone Road, Rochester, Kent, ME1 1RR, the Panel considered the written and oral evidence presented at the hearing, with the exception of evidence relating to the visit to the premises by Immigration Officers in 2008, and had regard to both Medway Council’s current Licensing Policy and the Statutory Guidance.

b)  The Panel determined that the premises licence be suspended for a period of 3 months to allow the licensee to reset the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 580.

It is recommended that the panel exclude the press and public from the meeting during the decision-making process in respect of items 6 and 7, and also during consideration of the exempt appendices in respect of item 7, for the reasons set out in the report. 

Decision:

The press and public were excluded from the meeting during the Panel’s deliberations and decision making in respect of agenda items 6 and 7, and also during the Panel’s consideration of exempt appendices in respect of agenda item 7, on the grounds that it was likely that, if members of the public and press were present during consideration of the appendices, there would be disclosure of exempt information in accordance with paragraphs 1, 5 and 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, as specified in agenda item 8 (Exclusion of the Press and Public) and, in all the circumstances of the case, the Panel considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.